Case Summary (G.R. No. 116607)
Factual Background and Proceedings Below
Maria Victoria Tuason filed the annulment petition in 1989 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 149, Makati. She alleged that Emilio Tuason was psychologically incapacitated at the time of marriage, which manifested in violent behavior, physical injuries inflicted on her, drug use, abandonment, infidelity, minimal family support, and reckless administration of conjugal properties. Petitioner denied these allegations and counterclaimed that he and his wife had a normal marriage for the first ten years and that his departure in 1984 was temporary due to extreme animosities. He likewise alleged that it was Maria Victoria who used drugs and had an affair.
Trial and Evidence
Trial commenced on March 30, 1990. Private respondent presented four witnesses, including an expert on Canon Law and marriage counseling, and submitted supporting documentary evidence. Petitioner actively participated initially by filing pleadings, cross-examining witnesses, and opposing the appointment of an administratrix for the conjugal partnership. However, petitioner’s counsel filed a motion to postpone the reception of petitioner’s evidence on May 8, 1990; appointment of June 8, 1990 was made, but petitioner failed to appear. The RTC then declared petitioner to have waived his right to present evidence and deemed the case submitted for decision solely on the evidence offered by the private respondent.
Trial Court Ruling and Immediate Aftermath
On June 29, 1990, the RTC rendered judgment declaring the marriage null and void ab initio due to petitioner’s psychological incapacity, awarding custody of the children to the private respondent. The judgment became final and executory as petitioner did not appeal within the reglementary period. Petitioner later filed a petition for relief from judgment alleging denial of due process based on his absence during trials because of confinement for drug rehabilitation.
Petition for Relief from Judgment and Court of Appeals Decision
Petitioner contended that his absence was due to medical rehabilitation at the Drug Rehabilitation Center, but his counsel failed to inform the court of this fact. The RTC denied his petition for relief from judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this denial on July 29, 1994, ruling that petitioner’s claim rested on counsel’s negligence, which is not excusable.
Legal Analysis: Relief from Judgment Under Rule 38, Sec. 2
The Court emphasized that relief from judgment under Rule 38, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court is allowed only upon showing fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, coupled with evidence of a good, substantial, and meritorious defense. Negligence of counsel, including failure to notify the client of adverse judgment and failure to inform the court of petitioner’s rehabilitation confinement, constituted inexcusable negligence that did not warrant relief from judgment. Notice to counsel is binding, and failure to act on adverse judgment does not invalidate the finality of the decision.
Due Process and ‘Day in Court’ Principle
The Court held that petitioner was not deprived of due process or denied his day in court, since he actively engaged in the litigation by answering the complaint, cross-examining witnesses, and filing pleadings. The waiver of the right to present evidence was due to petitioner’s failure to appear, not a denial of opportunity.
Role of Prosecuting Attorney in Annulment Cases and Collusion Concerns
Petitioner argued that the trial court erred by not ordering the prosecuting attorney to intervene due to his failure to appear, citing Articles 48 and 60 of the Family Code, which require the prosecuting attorney to prevent collusion and fabricated evidence in annulment or legal separation cases. The Court clarified that this requirement applies primarily when the defendant defaults by failing to answer the complaint. Since petitioner filed an answer and contested the case throughout the trial actively, no default existe
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 116607)
Background and Factual Context
- The case involves a petition for annulment of marriage filed by Maria Victoria Lopez Tuason against Emilio R. Tuason.
- The parties were married on June 3, 1972, and had two children.
- Private respondent alleged that at the time of marriage, petitioner was psychologically incapacitated to meet essential marital obligations, which manifested over time through violent disputes.
- Physical injury was inflicted by petitioner during one fight, leading to a criminal case.
- Accusations included petitioner’s drug use, womanizing, abandonment in 1984, minimal financial support, and mismanagement of conjugal properties including alienation of assets without consent.
- Petitioner denied allegations, claiming a normal married life for the first decade, blamed private respondent for their marital problems and accused her of drug use and infidelity.
- Petitioner sought to return to the conjugal home and continue conjugal partnership administration.
Procedural Posture
- Trial began on March 30, 1990.
- Private respondent presented four witnesses and documentary evidence including prior church annulment decrees.
- Petitioner filed opposition to private respondent’s petition for administration of conjugal partnership assets.
- Petitioner requested postponement in May 1990 due to counsel’s absence; the court granted postponement to June 8, 1990.
- Petitioner failed to appear on June 8, 1990; court deemed petitioner waived the right to present evidence and submitted case for decision based on respondent’s evidence.
- On June 29, 1990, trial court declared the marriage null and void due to psychological incapacity under Section 36 of the Family Code and awarded custody of children to private respondent.
- Petitioner’s counsel received the decision on August 24, 1990, but did not appeal.
- Private respondent filed a Motion for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership on September 24, 1990; petitioner opposed.
- On the same day, petitioner filed a petition for relief from judgment which was denied by the trial court on August 8, 1991.
- Petitioner appealed the denial to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's order denying relief on July 29, 1994.
- The petitioner sought review by this Supreme Court petition.
Issues Presented
- Whether a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, on grounds of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, is warranted given petitioner’s failure to present evidence and failure to appeal.
- Whether petitioner was denied due process due to the court deeming his waiver to present evidence after two absences.
- Whether the failure to have prosecuting attorney intervene as mandated by Family Code Articles 48 and 60 invalidated the proceeding